Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. 'List' indicates a read-only operation, and the description specifies exactly what will be returned (US states and lawyer counts). There is no ambiguity about side effects or hidden behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function with no filler. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: the action, the scope (US states), and the data included (lawyer counts). No additional information is necessary for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. Per the rubric, this establishes a baseline of 4. The description adds context about the output (what is listed) but does not need to elaborate on parameter meanings since none exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the verb 'List' with a specific resource ('US states with lawyer counts'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like find_lawyer_by_name and search_lawyers, which deal with individual lawyers rather than jurisdiction-level aggregates.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the usage context: retrieving a list of US states alongside lawyer counts. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but given the distinct nature of sibling tools (e.g., get_practice_areas), the clear statement of the listing behavior provides adequate context without exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.